We fully understand your POV on this but as you state, it will take 6 months or more to get through all the process. We will be taking action on it at our Nov 18th meeting, the motion on the floor is to send it to last call. That is the motion we will deal with at our next meeting, I would not be overly alarmed at this and I fully support the decision to table the motion based on the information that was provided, in fact it was a unanimous decision. This in no way is a show of non-support from the AC, just the AC performing its mission in the prescribed manner. I can assure you that Bill is working with Staff for clarity on the addresses in question and has been asked to have final resolution prior to the AC Nov 18th meeting. Thanks.
On 10/13/10 4:33 PM, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
On 10/13/10 3:36 PM, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> Marty,
>> Thanks for the opportunity to respond:
>> The main issue is that the official label for those addresses is legacy
> addresses but not all legacy addresses are wrapped up in that particular
> issue. Since we became aware that the issue surrounding these particular
> addresses should/would/will be cleared up in the next 10 days or so and given
> the struggle that we had trying to find language that would work we decided as
> a body to table the motion to send it to last call. This will be dealt with on
> our very next AC call which is scheduled for November 18th.
John,
I'm not challenging anything other than the fact that the AC opted to table
something that they had strong direction to work on. It's fair for us to ask
for the AC to legitimize a decision especially when there is clear
consensus.
With regards to the global proposal, you both (Bill and you) have now said
that Geoff's hypothetical issues will be moot in a few days. This proposal
is nowhere near adoption or implementation and won't be within ten days. It
will likely take six months or more if it is even adopted globally. I think
that issue is a non-issue unless there's something that don't know that
didn't come out in the list or meeting discussion.
That leaves Owens reading of some language which had identified as unclear
and we asserted that he was in error. Still, we suggested some text to
clarify and since it's only an edit related to clarity and not context it
could also be easily dealt with by the ASO AC at the end of the cycle and in
compliance with their PDP as well as all of the other regions.
This proposal is on the agenda of three other RIR forums at the moment.
LACNIC next week, Rome after that and AfriNIC following that. Making a major
modification at this point is a problem as was demonstrated with 2009-06,
and holding it up for a non context impacting clarity concern doesn't seem
reasonable all considered.
Best,
-M<
________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.